3D movies so good that they shouldn't exist (or aren't worth watching) in 2D

[UFAlien]

Well, Silent Hill: Revelation and Sadako are terrible enough and ruin horror franchises I like so badly that I don't really think they should exist period, but they both have some nifty 3D effects. I can't think of any other reasons to watch them except possibly to laugh at with your friends.

[Jay Ellis]

Originally Posted by Impossible

Sanctum was atrocious in whatever format.

I liked Gravity in 2D just as much as 3D and apart from about 2 scenes I didn't think the weak 3D really offered anything to the film.

The last 2 titles should never have been made in the first place....

Agreed. The 3d in Gravity was way overhyped. It's good 3d sure but not the end-all showcase the media hyped it up to be.

[Nighteyes]

Pina and Hugo.

[brdmaverick]

and yet the only 'movie' I'm aware of that exists only in 3D is the 2010 World Cup blu ray

[Taygan315]

Originally Posted by bhampton

I liked all those movies.

Same here

[Zivouhr]

Though I would always prefer the option to watch a movie in 3D and 2D, if I had to pick one that benefits from really strong 3D, it would include Turtle's Tale 2. The 3D is a shining example of what 3D stereographers should aim for with computer animated films.

I'd consider watching it in 2D, but then would constantly feel I'm missing out on the awesome 3D.

[humphrey]

Hugo. The film is about George Melies, one of the most prominent innovators of special effects in entertainment. The 3D in the film was used as a technique to complete a narrative of movie magic - a movie about the grandfather of special effects told in the medium of the most popular trend in special effects.

At one point, Melies' most famous film is shown, converted in 3-D.

Watching Hugo in 2D robs the viewer of the true story.

[morphinapg]

Personally, if any movie needs 3D it probably isn't a good movie to begin with. 3D is just an additional dimension that draws you in more. If you're using it as an effect or a spectacle of some kind, you're sacrificing good film making for a cool effect. 3D should be viewed like color or surround sound. Something that increases the immersion of the movie, and is the best way to view the movie, but isn't really required to appreciate the film.

[Taygan315]

Oblivion comes to mind right away. That flick was MEANT for 3D!!!!!!! imo.
Elysium is another

[thegalaxybeing]

I have a copy of "It Came from Outer Space" in Anaglyph 3D. Although that's a comparatively poor way to view 3D, It's the only version I've scene and I was delighted to find it. That being said, there are some really great 3D Scenes in the movie (The fireplace scene and the rock-slide scene quickly come to mind). I was impressed at how nice these scenes looked with even this rudimentary way of viewing 3D. This movie is presently the holy grail of my blu ray 3D "Wishlist".

I presently have 27 3D blue rays.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by morphinapg

Personally, if any movie needs 3D it probably isn't a good movie to begin with. 3D is just an additional dimension that draws you in more. If you're using it as an effect or a spectacle of some kind, you're sacrificing good film making for a cool effect. 3D should be viewed like color or surround sound. Something that increases the immersion of the movie, and is the best way to view the movie, but isn't really required to appreciate the film.

The best 3D films are told in a different cinematic language than typical 2D films. The way you storyboard, compose, and edit shots should be completely different than how you would convey the same scenes in 2D. Directors who understand 3D language well make movies where 3D absolutely is essential to fully appreciate the artistic value of movie. In reference to the OP, I think anything with good 3D design should always be viewed in 3D for best results.

I see what you're saying though. If it also has a good script, acting, and other qualities (like Avatar, Gravity, Hugo, Life of Pi), it's watchable and enjoyable in 2D. Just not with the same emotional impact that it was designed for. Movies with bad scripts and acting but good 3D design still have major flaws.

[Taygan315]

Originally Posted by thegalaxybeing

I have a copy of "It Came from Outer Space" in Anaglyph 3D. Although that's a comparatively poor way to view 3D, It's the only version I've scene and I was delighted to find it. That being said, there are some really great 3D Scenes in the movie (The fireplace scene and the rock-slide scene quickly come to mind). I was impressed at how nice these scenes looked with even this rudimentary way of viewing 3D. This movie is presently the holy grail of my blu ray 3D "Wishlist".

I presently have 27 3D blue rays.

Would love to see this get a 3D blu release as well.

[Stu123]

You're sacrificing the brightness and contrast though when you put the glasses on. A bright sunny day scene looks cloudy and overcast. I'm not a big 3D fan because of that reason. Once we get 3D without the glasses then that will be brilliant if we ever do.

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

You're sacrificing the brightness and contrast though when you put the glasses on. A bright sunny day scene looks cloudy and overcast. I'm not a big 3D fan because of that reason. Once we get 3D without the glasses then that will be brilliant if we ever do.

It's darker in comparison, yes, but your eyes adjust. It doesn't affect the contrast.

3D without glasses isn't feasible for the home, and that will never change. 3D without glasses is possible, as seen by the 3DS, but it only works for portable devices like that for one major reason: The sweet spot. It's a problem inherent to glasses-free 3D, and it can't be avoided. The display needs to ensure that it's sending one image to your left eye, and another image to your right eye. The only way it can do that properly, is if it knows where you're sitting. So you have to sit in a sweet spot predetermined by the display maker. It's possible to have a number of sweet spots, but you'll always have to sit in one of those spots and stay very still to keep the 3D effect.

It might be more feasible in larger theaters where they can design the seating arrangement around the glasses-free 3D, but because they'd have to redesign the entire theaters to support it, I doubt it's going to happen.

Glasses are just part of the deal with 3D, and that's not going to change. And don't go talking about sci-fi 3D holograms either. Even if there was a way to project a 3D image like that (which physically may not be possible) then it's still nearly impossible to render a CGI image that way (and a ridiculous waste of rendering power even when possible), and physically impossible to film live action that way.

There's nothing wrong with wearing glasses for 3D. Plenty of people wear glasses every day.

[Stu123]

Originally Posted by morphinapg

There's nothing wrong with wearing glasses for 3D. Plenty of people wear glasses every day.

Not sunglasses inside though

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

Not sunglasses inside though

3D glasses are nowhere near as dark as sunglasses.

[anephric]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

The best 3D films are told in a different cinematic language than typical 2D films. The way you storyboard, compose, and edit shots should be completely different than how you would convey the same scenes in 2D.

What language is that, then? Just because there's a bit more depth to the image doesn't mean some revolutionary new mise en scene has been established.

I think you're using just a few more superlatives than is strictly required.

[Yojimbo68]

I'd have to go with Avatar. That was meant to be seen in 3D. I have issues with the movie itself but it has the best modern day 3D. It's the only way to see the film.

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

I'd have to go with Avatar. That was meant to be seen in 3D. I have issues with the movie itself but it has the best modern day 3D. It's the only way to see the film.

I just watched Avatar in 3D last night and the 3D is really deep in that movie to the point where some scenes almost hurt your eyes, especially towards the beginning in live action. I can't imagine IMAX 3D for that movie, since a bigger screen leads to even more depth, but would also pronounce the eye strain as well. Although some of the wider shots I would imagine are way better in IMAX 3D. However, if I went to see that movie in IMAX, I might choose 2D instead of 3D, simply because the 3D might be too much for IMAX for this movie.

I think the problem with live action 3D that was actually filmed in 3D vs post-converted, is that it's very difficult to calibrate both lenses to produce light in exactly the same way, so there is some variance in the lighting slightly in the left and right image in live action footage. I think over the years this problem has been reduced, but I still noticed it slightly in the new X-men movie as well. You don't get that problem with native 3D CGI or post converted live action footage.

[thebard]

A bit off-topic, but...
I've never understood the argument about the "inconvenience" of 3D glasses. I've heard this complaint from skiiers, swimmers, construction workers, friends who need glasses for reading, you name it... all people who don't think twice about putting on eyewear for their job, task or recreational activity of choice.

I used to scuba dive quite a bit, and not once did I ever hear a fellow diver say "I enjoy diving, if only it weren't for that stupid mask!"